[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 16:06, Alan Stern <> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> You mentioned earlier, that you would need to match the holder of the
>> "lock" and the one that accesses the device?
> Yes.  That is, a process shouldn't be allowed to access a locked device
> unless that process is the lock holder.

You think the pid or the uid would make more sense?

>> Wouldn't it be sufficient already, if you can take a "lock" at the
>> specific port, that prevents the kernel to access the device when it
>> shows up?
> I don't know how the people requesting this feature would feel about
> that.  They seem to want to lock out other processes as well as locking
> out the kernel.

Might be useful, yeah. I could think of use cases where a specific uid
wants to lock a device, by holding the lock file open, and only the
same uid (could be a different pid) can claim the device from

>> You thought of supporting a number of different users, with different
>> uids, or would that be a root-only action?
> A typical use case would be somebody running an emulator like QEMU.  In
> theory there could be multiple QEMU processes running concurrently,
> each owning a different set of ports.  The uids might be different or
> they might all be the same.
> Setting the lock permissions would be up to userspace.

Yeah, sounds fine.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-09 19:05    [W:0.066 / U:39.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site